Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Violence Is Cultured in Our Youth By Example?

Expand Messages
  • Fred W. Bach
    ... [snip] ... Studied to be a teacher. Ah, there we have the problem ;-) . The militant teaching profession, along with those darned social workers and
    Message 1 of 107 , May 1 2:00 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Fred McGalliard wrote:

      > From: Fred McGalliard <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...>
      >

      [snip]


      > I spent a
      > lot of time learning how to raise my kids and I also studied as a
      > teacher early on. I think we have a lot of oversimplified views of how
      > to raise kids.

      Studied to be a teacher. Ah, there we have the problem ;-) .

      The militant teaching profession, along with those darned social workers
      and godless university professors have been gathering socialist propaganda
      for years and putting it into their teaching courses. Training to be a teacher
      gives you a false sense of knowledge, a false sense of having the truth,
      in my opinion. In this country the teachers and the social workers have,
      in my and many other people's opinions, done their darndest to undermine
      parental authority, even police authority. Just ask them. In Canada,
      they'll tell you! What the police want is "if you do the crime you get the
      punishment". They also want to have the authority to physically take
      kids off the streets and send them home. But these social workers
      and teachers have indoctrinated the kids with the idea that if they don't
      like discipline and don't like what their parents tell them to do (or not do)
      that they can just make up their own minds and they don't have to
      obey. THAT'S what the teachers and social workers have done!
      And that, my friends, is truly evil. They have told the kids their
      rights without teaching them their God-given responsibilities as kids.

      Do you know what your parental rights are in Canada? You have
      the right to know that your child is safe. That's all. You have no
      right to know where he/she is, nor with whom your child is
      associating, nor do you have the right to go fetch them and bring
      them home if they don't want to come home. And that was
      told to me by a member of the city police force, in uniform.
      And that is truly evil.

      > Face it, a kid, even at 5, is the most complex piece of
      > equipment you will ever tinker with. You have to feed it right, exercise
      > it right, and give it your love and attention. Works great when your kid
      > turns out to be one of the easy to raise "cheer leaders". But what do
      > you do when they are the hard ones that can be either juvinile
      > delenquents or the bold leaders who point out our faults?

      What do you do? Could corporal punishment be the answer ?

      Indeed you have expressed the problem well.. Environment counts,
      but as is the purpose of reproduction by means of sex, the genes are
      all shuffled at conception for the specific means of generating variety
      in the species. And children do arise who are of a different makeup,
      a different mental patterns than their parents, or to put it plainly, mutated,
      although these mutations *may* not be obvious and there really are no
      tests for them that are any good. The brain is a physical organ and
      such mutations happen to it too. Or, as has been said here before,
      there are environmental and nutritional factors in the mother's life
      that could cause brain damage to the unborn child.

      >Then you have
      >to learn the difference between dicipline and love.

      "Whom the father loves he disciplines". They are inseparable.
      Love *includes* discipline, but discipline does not necessarily
      include love.

      >Too often you find
      >that all the advice you get is simply wrong. I think you would find it
      >safer, and wiser, to never strike your child after the age of 3,
      >regardless. It is just too easy to do for the wrong reasons, and to
      >achieve the wrong effects.


      I think 14 is more like it, when reason does not work and the
      theme is just general disrespect for laws or parental authority.

      BEFORE ANY PUNISHMENT IS ADMINISTERED, THE
      CHILD MUST BE CONVICTED AND HE MUST UNDERSTAND
      THAT HE HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF BREAKING THE RULES
      WITHOUT GOOD REASON.

      And boy they'll try to fool ya! They'll lie and exaggerate like a pro.
      Seems to be born in them. The parent's job is to get at the real
      truth. The parent must instill in the child that the child's credibility
      is critically important. They must be taught to protect and guard
      their credibility. Thus they must be taught, by whatever means
      necessary, not to lie to their parents. But what do TV shows like
      Friends, and Three's Company teach the pre-teens? It teaches
      them that everything is about sex and lying to each other. Seemingly
      harmless and funny. So we sit back like those frogs in the water.
      We are unaware of the subtleties that influence our children's
      minds in the wrong direction. So, when a child is caught lying,
      punishment is in order. It is one of the first signs of trouble.

      The parent(s) are the judges. That's their job, and these darned
      teachers and social workers have done their best to short-circuit
      or nullify the God-given authority that the parents have, and society,
      being, as previously illustrated, 'frogs on the stove' has let them
      sneak it by. Just because there are a few bad parents out there,
      these new laws take away every parent's God-given authority in
      this godless society.

      And don't talk to me about the socialist's whine of poverty, illness
      and hardship to the kids. There was plenty of these things in the
      old days and kids were far better behaved then.. Maybe I would
      buy the argument that overcrowding is a problem with today's kids.


      ... Fred Bach music@... Opinions are my own.
    • Fred McGalliard
      coexusa wrote: ... The citizens demand that their legeslaters listen to them, and support their positions, even when their positions are foolishly short
      Message 107 of 107 , May 10 10:57 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        coexusa wrote:
        ...
        > Fred McGalliard wrote:
        > >Right now, as I read it, the citizens are the source of the corruption
        > >in our government, and the primary reason that it can't even decide how
        > >to tie it's own shoe laces, so to speak.
        >
        > Please explain what you you mean by the above statement? Which citizens?
        > Where? What corruption? Your comment is so "broad sweeping" that I have no
        > idea what you are talking about?

        The citizens demand that their legeslaters listen to them, and support
        their positions, even when their positions are foolishly short sighted.
        We pay em well to vote the way we want. Then we bitch like crazy when
        they accept money from positions we don't like. We insist they lie to
        us, and persistently ignore their wrongdoing as long as we think they
        are "taking care" of us. We pay em, we ignore their behavior, we make
        use of it and take advantage of it and we accept the cost of it. Are
        "we" then, not responsible? Frankly, I doubt that you and I would agree
        on any one particular example, but as I see it the politicians, with a
        few interesting exceptions, learned their behavior at our feet. We
        raised them up this way. It is no good now to complain. When was the
        last time we voted for a man who told us what our policies would cost
        us?


        > First of all, civil war is a fact of history. People revolt when they feel
        > that government is oppressing them. Remember the revolutionary war? You
        > think that war veterans, grandfathers, patriots who love their country but
        > can't stand to see the government continually meddling into the lifes of law
        > abiding citizens are "undisciplined rowdies"? Think again, Fred.

        Sorry, but there is a big difference between even a few hundred thousand
        folk with short range anti personel weapons and a bad attitude and a
        serious army. It takes years to build, equip, and train an army, even
        when it is built from folks with some military experience. And you need
        several hundred billions worth of tanks, aircraft, copters, and thats
        without nukes. But it is more important that you remember, as long as it
        is a small scale insurection, you get treated real nice, though you
        might not think so. When the gloves come off, your crew faces attack
        helicopters with night vision, serious air surpression, heavy combat
        equipment, and the support of the rest of the nation. You could slow em
        down a bit as they feel you out, but you will not stop them, and if they
        want to roll over you, you will not have the opertunity to write your
        will after the fighting starts. What are you thinking? And did you
        imagine that everyone would just sort of sign up for your little war? If
        you can't win the elections, you surely can't win the civil war.


        > If you can't let them do it, then you must see that "we" can't, we
        > dare not, let you do it.
        >
        > Who is YOU and OUR? Please be specific. Are you dividing us up into
        > conservative and liberal? Democrat and Republican? I don't think that way.
        > I am not trying to take up arms and change "that same government by force".
        > I just want our government to be what the Constitution says it should be, "a
        > republic", not a Socialist Democracy which is what we have now.

        Shoot. What garbage. Socialist Democracy? Where does it say that we
        can't be that in the Constitution? If you don't like the way the supreme
        court interprets the constituition, write em about it. Trying to force
        your views down everyone elses throats is what our clumsy three
        sectioned government is all about. No hot head can quickly bring the
        supreme court to heel, nor can a quick insurection among the rightious
        in the hinterlands change the government in a day. If you don't like the
        way we run our country, feel free to leave. You might let someone know
        you are leaving, I suspect there would be a few takers for your place
        here.

        Understand me, and hear it well, this country is in the sorry state it
        is because of us, and for our sake. We damn well better pay more
        attention to it, and fix some things. What we call our form of
        government, a "socialist democracy" or democratic republic, or whatever,
        is a job for junior political scientests. If you want to fix something
        that is wrong, tell us what is wrong, and how you want to fix it. We
        vote. We can change it. Take up arms to try to change it by force and we
        will all come down on you like a ton of lead. You have the vote, you
        have access to the means of communication. Use it. And I would suggest
        if you want to wage war, you adopt Martin Luther King's tactics. He has
        had at least modest success.

        > How dare you tell ME what I "dare to consider for use" as a weapon of war.
        > I was guaranteed freedom by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I
        > won't bother anyone if they don't bother me. So, you want to disarm all the
        > US Citizens

        Let's see. I get this right, you stand firmly for arming the black
        panthers, tanks, antiaircraft, cobra helicopters, the whole schmear. Of
        course what's left of the Communists would really like some guns as
        well, maby a few nukes. Course we would have to disarm the right wing
        ginks in the mid west to take away their large terrorist bombs, but I am
        sure they would like to be able to confront the panthers with their own
        tanks and aircraft. And let's be fair about this. The marajuana
        legalization league would like to police it's fields with fully armed
        tanks to keep the local police in line. Now, what was that again about
        what you would "dare" to do with military grade arms? See, you are not
        the only one who just wan't his guns to support his own freedom from an
        opressive government.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.